The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

  • We are looking for a committed forum member who would like to help with administration and moderation of our forum. Good communication and writing skills would be appreciated. Please message Olaf if you are interested.

Is there a compelling reason to move to MF?

ErikKaffehr

Well-known member
Hi,

That's a nice weight, I struggle a lot coming down to 10.0 kg, independent of what I carry.

Best regards
Erik

I use a Manfrotto bag that contains the XF/IQ3 100 with the SK 80 mm lens fitted, along with the SK 55 mm, SK35 mm and SK 120 mm. Also several filters and spare batteries. It weighs 7.8 kg and I've never had a carry-on problem with any airline - and I've used a lot. Tripod and other gear goes in checked baggage.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Hi Marc,

Your postings are always an interesting reads, thanks a lot!

Regarding the "Duh" argument it is not about size, but more about weight and the 10 kg carry on limit on flights. If you fly business you can have two carry ons, but I don't fly business. The other way to see it, the A7rII kit covers my needs from 16-400 mm within those 10 kg. I don't know if a modern camera is lighter than the old Blad.

Regarding the Nyköping image, if you are referring to this:
Sony A7rIIP45+ (stitched)
This was shot on the A7rII with the Canon 24/3.5 TSE LII. With that lens I achieved the composition I wanted, with a single exposure and without moving back. Histogram and auto exposure lured me into 1/400 s, so the image is a bit low on exposure. Do again, do it right!This was shot on the P45+ with the Distagon 40 at f/11. I needed to move back 3-5 m to get the both buildings into the image. That also meant the park bench is hanging into the image. I considered moving it, but it is quite heavy. I could turn the camera vertically and stitch, that would give me a better composition. I didn't think about it. Do again, do it right!

Best regards
Erik
No, the image I am referencing was the stand alone one where you shot some extra sky and merged it. I think that has the sort of MFD "presence" some of us are talking about. Again, if you don't see it then it is obviously your work and your call.

The two side-by-side images you commented on above are more about field-of-view, composition and perspective where a 24mm TS lens out-maneuvered a fixed 40mm (Duh!). But if you look at the spire of the main subject building, the P45 looks way better IMO. Also, I find the composition of the Hassey shot to be just as pleasing as the other because the lamp-post is placed between the buildings.

Would you P45+ back work on a 501 or 503 body? That'd cut a lot of weight immediately.

- Marc
 

thomas

New member
As a final note, I have some issues with folks complaining about other folks tests.
I do not complain about your tests. I just think many of them are not really meaningful (often you work against your equipment - often you stop down to f16 and, again, you use a software that is effectively limiting with regard to the real potential of your P45+).
But the "Weldon-Challenge" was about exploring the possiblities and strength of your P45+. Instead of finding out what your P45+ can do for you you made yet another questionable comparison.
The challenge, by the way, was to show the "contrast" of the two buildings ... and my reading of the challenge is that the task is also content-related... so the challenge also requires some kind of pictorial concept. It's not just about capturing two buildings next to each other... IMO.
Anyway... I think instead of posting graphs and comparisons you could spend your time much better by really learning Capture One and by really exploring the possibilities of your P45+. Looking at your photos taken with the P45+ I think you never did.

As a finale note: for me personally most of the tests posted on forums are not really important. They may give an impression but I rarely draw final conclusions from these tests...
 
Last edited:

ErikKaffehr

Well-known member
Dear Sir,

I don't stop down to f/16, that is something you claim. A totally ignorant statement on your part. As a matter of fact, I have a lot of issues with aliasing, both on the P45+ and the Sony A7rII. Shooting f/16 essentially eliminates aliasing on the P45+. In general I shoot f/11 on the P45+, as I find it a decent compromise between DoF, focusing accuracy and diffraction. So you make ignorant claims.

I have shot some single picture shot at f/16 to get sufficient DoF that I have published, but that doesn't mean that I am a frequent user of f/16. Would I do that I wouldn't see aliasing, which I do. The Weldon Challenge images were shot at f/11 on the P45+ and at f/8 - f11 on the Sony. On the Sony I use shifts, so I use very peripheral parts of the image so it is prudent to stop down. Unshifted images on the Sony are at f/8, equivalent aperture to f/11 on the P45+.

The approach taken on the Weldon Challenge is essentially to:

  • Find my point of view
  • Shoot it with the P45+
  • Shoot it with the A7rII

It would be hard to learn the benefits of the P45+ without having comparison stuff, wouldn't it?

So, you feel that I need to learn Capture One to make best use of the P45+? So, you mean that medium format needs Capture One for decent results. Feel a lot of pity for Leica S users who don't have access to a superior image processing application…

I do see some benefits to Capture One, like somewhat better suppression of demosaic artefacts than LR, but as you claim that I shoot f/16 that should not be an issue, as f/16 eliminates aliasing on the P45+. But, I of course don't shoot at f/16, unless forced to.

Let's put it this way, I got a nice challenge and I try to meet it. I shoot both P45+ and Sony A7rII and I do share the images here (*): http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/WeldonChallenge/

I don't mind comments, but I don't like untrue statements about my shooting practices about which you can now little. And please share your own images.

Best regards
Erik

(*) Many of the images are DNGs. I generally prefer DNG to proprietary raw, but the main reason is that a disproportionate part of my images with the P45+ are stitched and I do that stitching in Lightroom, that delivers a DNG image. The alternative would be TIFF. For plain images I normally share IIQ on the P45+ whenever practical.

Ps

You don't happen to have an alter egon called ThoMas on LuLa?











I do not complain about your tests. I just think many of them are not really meaningful (often you work against your equipment - often you stop down to f16 and, again, you use a software that is effectively limiting with regard to the real potential of your P45+).
But the "Weldon-Challenge" was about exploring the possiblities and strength of your P45+. Instead of finding out what your P45+ can do for you you made yet another questionable comparison.
The challenge, by the way, was to show the "contrast" of the two buildings ... and my reading of the challenge is that the task is also content-related... so the challenge also requires some kind of pictorial concept. It's not just about capturing two buildings next to each other... IMO.
Anyway... I think instead of posting graphs and comparisons you could spend your time much better by really learning Capture One and by really exploring the possibilities of your P45+. Looking at your photos taken with the P45+ I think you never did.

As a finale note: for me personally most of the tests posted on forums are not really important. They may give an impression but I rately draw final conclusions from these tests...
 

stephengilbert

Active member
A question that interests me is whether there is a compelling reason to beat everything to death?

I understand that some people are just trolls; that they post things designed to annoy others for the "fun" of it.

But it seems to me that more often people are just compulsive. They can't stop arguing about things, and since there's always someone else with a point that really needs to be made, these threads live on and on.

Now we're talking about the weight of different systems and whether we fly coach or business class? Sounds like a compelling reason to me.
 

Landscapelover

Senior Subscriber Member
I am surprised this post has lasted this long.

I think the title should be changed to "Is there a compelling reason to move to Phase One P45+?"
 

ErikKaffehr

Well-known member
Hi Marc,

I didn't know which image you referred to. I think it was this one:


Here is another, in the same ilk:


The last two years about half of my shooting was with the P45+ and I got some nice images, I think. But, oddly enough, none of those have made it to the wall. I generally had the Hasselblad/P45+ combo with me on travel, but for some reason none of those pictures made it to the wall. One reason may be that the P45+ did not make it to those magic places. Or could be that I am shooting everything between fisheye and 800 mm telephoto. I don't know. A lot of nice images on the P45+, anyway:


Here is one image that didn't make it to the wall:


Here is another:


On the other hand, these images made it to the wall:
Sony Alpha 99 with 24-70/2.8 zoom at 60 mm


Sony Alpha 99 with Sigma 10/2.8 APS-C fisheye (using 10 MP APS-C crop)


Sony Alpha 99 with 70-400/4-5.6 at 140 mm


That challenge Weldon suggested is an interesting learning experience. I have just been trough day one, lets see what the future brings.

Best regards
Erik

No, the image I am referencing was the stand alone one where you shot some extra sky and merged it. I think that has the sort of MFD "presence" some of us are talking about. Again, if you don't see it then it is obviously your work and your call.

The two side-by-side images you commented on above are more about field-of-view, composition and perspective where a 24mm TS lens out-maneuvered a fixed 40mm (Duh!). But if you look at the spire of the main subject building, the P45 looks way better IMO. Also, I find the composition of the Hassey shot to be just as pleasing as the other because the lamp-post is placed between the buildings.

Would you P45+ back work on a 501 or 503 body? That'd cut a lot of weight immediately.

- Marc
 
Last edited:

ErikKaffehr

Well-known member
Hi,

An interesting suggestion and quite relevant. The way I see it there are two positions:

  • One is that MFD as such has great benefits regardless of sensor and resolution
  • Another is that high end MFD has significant benefits over smaller sensors

Potential first time buyers are probable entering at low level, going for an older sensor like the P45+ or cropped frame sensors. Obviously, the latest sensors like the IQ3 100MP have the benefit of both resolution and image size.

With the P45+ it is possible to build a decent MFD system at reasonable cost. It is worth discussing the advantages/disadvantages of such a system over modern 24x36 mm technology.

I don't think that anyone doubts the benefits of high end MFD, especially not with latest generation MFD using the same basic technology as say Nikon or Sony. A valid question may be how large you need to print to have significant benefits from the larger image size?

Best regards
Erik



I am surprised this post has lasted this long.

I think the title should be changed to "Is there a compelling reason to move to Phase One P45+?"
 

ErikKaffehr

Well-known member
Hi,

That is a question that is very relevant if you travel by air. If you don't do that it is totally irrelevant. For me it has always been a very major issue, those things I consider for many months for each trip.

A few years ago I solved that issue by "prepositioning equipment" and also checking in MFD lenses but not camera and back. Now I feel that I have a set of gear that covers all my needs, but that essentially means that the MFD stuff is limited to overland trips, including ferries. That doesn't mean I don't like shooting with MFD, it just means MFD stuff is not going to a lot of interesting places.

Best regards
Erik

A question that interests me is whether there is a compelling reason to beat everything to death?

I understand that some people are just trolls; that they post things designed to annoy others for the "fun" of it.

But it seems to me that more often people are just compulsive. They can't stop arguing about things, and since there's always someone else with a point that really needs to be made, these threads live on and on.

Now we're talking about the weight of different systems and whether we fly coach or business class? Sounds like a compelling reason to me.
 
Last edited:

thomas

New member
It would be hard to learn the benefits of the P45+ without having comparison stuff, wouldn't it?
No. I don't need comparisons to appreciate what stunning IQ a P45 can deliver...

So, you feel that I need to learn Capture One to make best use of the P45+?
yes
So, you mean that medium format needs Capture One for decent results.
no

You don't happen to have an alter egon called ThoMas on LuLa?
no
 
Hi,

That is a question that is very relevant if you travel by air. If you don't do that it is totally irrelevant. For me it has always been a very major issue.

A few years ago I solved that issue by "prepositioning equipment" and also checking in MFD lenses but not camera and back. Now I feel that I have a set of gear that covers all my needs, but that essentially means that the MFD stuff is limited to overland trips, including ferries. That doesn't mean I don't like shooting with MFD, it just means MFD stuff is not going to a lot of interesting places.

Best regards
Erik
What are you packing to get to 10kg?! ... In contrast, something like a leica S and flexible 30-90 zoom is only about 2kg ..... I used to shoot 4x5 film and never got to that sort of weight including tripod!
How much does the MF in this amazing video weigh - about 2kgs, presumably. And if you bolted a 100mp back to it your flight weight would potentially be fine AND we wouldn't be discussing whether MF is worth it vs 35mm.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=H1MCfzVp8WA
 

ErikKaffehr

Well-known member
Hi,

The short answer is Hasselblad 555/ELD, Distagon 40/4CF, Distagon 60/3.5CF, Macro Planar 120/4CFi, Planar 100/3.5CF and a 180/4Cfi.

But you are quite right, that is not a lot of weight, but I also carry a 24x36 kit, like body, 16-35/4L, 24-105/4, 24/3.5 TSE, 90/2.8 Macro, 70-400/4-5.6 and a HCam TSII. So the MFD kit comes on top of the 24x36 kit.

The other point is that I don't compare a 100 MP CMOS back on a technical camera, even if I would say that makes sense. Or would make sense if the 100 MP back played well with movements, which may not be the case. I more compare backs that are affordable.

The recent couple of years used backs became a bit affordable, I jumped on the MFD train when I found a P45+ at 10 k$US. Now days those prices are much lower.

The 100 MP backs certainly make a difference, with the crop factor backs I am less sure.

Best regards
Erik


What are you packing to get to 10kg?! ... In contrast, something like a leica S and flexible 30-90 zoom is only about 2kg ..... I used to shoot 4x5 film and never got to that sort of weight including tripod!
How much does the MF in this amazing video weigh - about 2kgs, presumably. And if you bolted a 100mp back to it your flight weight would potentially be fine AND we wouldn't be discussing whether MF is worth it vs 35mm.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=H1MCfzVp8WA
 

jerome_m

Member
The approach taken on the Weldon Challenge is essentially to:

  • Find my point of view
  • Shoot it with the P45+
  • Shoot it with the A7rII

It would be hard to learn the benefits of the P45+ without having comparison stuff, wouldn't it?

Weldon Brewster will correct me if I am wrong, by I read in the challenge that you should just take one camera:


So, this gets me to your second kit. You have arguably one of the best digital backs ever made mounted on a legendary camera system. You have thoroughly showed us what it can't do. I offer you a challenge. Lets see what it can do, what are it's strengths? Head out at dawn on a crisp spring morning and photograph the city hall in Nyköping. I looked on Google earth and it looks like there is beautiful historic building next to the modern city hall. Lets see the contrast of the two. You only need one camera, one lens and a tripod. I'm confident that you will get some great images that will surprise the heck out of you. I make this suggestion with the best of intentions and I will certainly accept any challenge thrown my way.
(emphasis added).

If you always take two cameras, you limit yourself to the processes and subjects which can be used with both cameras.
 

Egor

New member
Another weekend, another morning I have checked in to see how this thread progresses. :)
I see that it hasn't been all "sorted" yet (quoting my Scottish assistant, Natalie ;)

Don't know if this helps but last week we had a location shoot for a new wine-in-a-can product. Our assignment was to shoot as many angles and locations and "summer" looks as possible with a bunch of models and product and the usual traveling carnival that is this type of shoot. (grips, mua's, cd's, ad's..etc)
We set up two shooters, myself and the Nat.
Nat used a 5DSR and Canon 135 f2L, I used PhaseOne IQ250/DF+/75-150
So both are 50MP decent camera systems

Occasionally we found ourselves shooting the same scene setup but through "different eyes" as it were.
Here is one of those similar shots done with both systems.
There is no winner, they are both good, which is more useful? ...above my pay-grade, client decides.
The IQ250, IN MY OPINION, is the better product shot and will require less post proc time if chosen.
The 5DSR performed very well and again, in my opinion, a better system for this type of shoot. For studio product stills, not a contest, IQ250.
Thats all I will say on the matter. Just thought this experience was relevant to the "shoot with two cameras" dealio so took a few mins and posted. Hope it is interesting comparison for some.

I am not a product tester nor do I play one on TV or in videos. I shoot professionally for money. If the client is happy, then I am happy. This was done this way because we wanted to maximize downtime with the models and create maximum amount of different shots for client use in a short period of time.

IQ250-overall.jpg5DSR-overall.jpgIQ250-close.jpg5DSR-close.jpg
 

ErikKaffehr

Well-known member
Hi,

Thanks for your input!

A personal reflection may be that I would prefer the IQ-version of the wide shot but the Canon version on the tight shot. The IQ images have a warmer look, in my opinion while 5D seems to be a bit more cold.

Best regards
Erik


Another weekend, another morning I have checked in to see how this thread progresses. :)
I see that it hasn't been all "sorted" yet (quoting my Scottish assistant, Natalie ;)

Don't know if this helps but last week we had a location shoot for a new wine-in-a-can product. Our assignment was to shoot as many angles and locations and "summer" looks as possible with a bunch of models and product and the usual traveling carnival that is this type of shoot. (grips, mua's, cd's, ad's..etc)
We set up two shooters, myself and the Nat.
Nat used a 5DSR and Canon 135 f2L, I used PhaseOne IQ250/DF+/75-150
So both are 50MP decent camera systems

Occasionally we found ourselves shooting the same scene setup but through "different eyes" as it were.
Here is one of those similar shots done with both systems.
There is no winner, they are both good, which is more useful? ...above my pay-grade, client decides.
The IQ250, IN MY OPINION, is the better product shot and will require less post proc time if chosen.
The 5DSR performed very well and again, in my opinion, a better system for this type of shoot. For studio product stills, not a contest, IQ250.
Thats all I will say on the matter. Just thought this experience was relevant to the "shoot with two cameras" dealio so took a few mins and posted. Hope it is interesting comparison for some.

I am not a product tester nor do I play one on TV or in videos. I shoot professionally for money. If the client is happy, then I am happy. This was done this way because we wanted to maximize downtime with the models and create maximum amount of different shots for client use in a short period of time.

View attachment 117855View attachment 117856View attachment 117857View attachment 117858
 

Egor

New member
Hi,

Thanks for your input!

A personal reflection may be that I would prefer the IQ-version of the wide shot but the Canon version on the tight shot. The IQ images have a warmer look, in my opinion while 5D seems to be a bit more cold.

Best regards
Erik
Those are just the same shots, Erik, zoomed in a little. The focus is softer, at least on the models if not on the product, on the IQ250. MF DoF is just shallower and harder to get right while hand holding in a field balancing oneself over a swimming pool. ;) Their appears to be more detail in shadows and highlights in the IQ image, again...imo. BUT the 5DSR image is tack sharp across the whole range. Don't really care, but I would prefer same sharpness out of the IQ.

All shots proc in C1 v9 so relative warmth/coolness not really a factor. BUT look at the guy's blue shirt. It is d.o.b.a. (dead on balls accurate) color out of the IQ but went a bit contrasty and crazy out of the 5DSR
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Interesting post Egor.

I do not play an Art Director on TV, but I actually am one:)

All IQ debates aside, I react to those shots the way I always would … which one feels more genuine, interactive and engaging while fitting in the product most naturally?

While we all would subscribe the abilities of a 35mm DSLR to better fit such a spontaneous shooting scenario, your MFD shot shows that, in the right hands, it is entirely possible to capture those invaluable moments with a
camera generally labeled as slow and contemplative. So much for stereotypes.

I also think the MFD shot has a more natural look and feel … or "presence".

It would have been nice if the MFD shot was done at f/8, but (depending on use) that would not stop me from selecting it as the better image to represent my client's brand.

Just a different perspective.

- Marc
 

Egor

New member
Interesting post Egor.

I do not play an Art Director on TV, but I actually am one:)

All IQ debates aside, I react to those shots the way I always would … which one feels more genuine, interactive and engaging while fitting in the product most naturally?

While we all would subscribe the abilities of a 35mm DSLR to better fit such a spontaneous shooting scenario, your MFD shot shows that, in the right hands, it is entirely possible to capture those invaluable moments with a
camera generally labeled as slow and contemplative. So much for stereotypes.

I also think the MFD shot has a more natural look and feel … or "presence".

It would have been nice if the MFD shot was done at f/8, but (depending on use) that would not stop me from selecting it as the better image to represent my client's brand.

Just a different perspective.

- Marc
Agree 100%, Marc! :) Thanks
I would (and did) choose the MF shot over the 5DSR shot to represent one of the "lifestyle" shots they were looking for. It just looks better to me, and its not because I shot it, or because its MF vs 35mm or whathaveyou...it just represents the look and feel we wanted. Whether their AD will pick it or not does not matter to me personally.
Our Nat is a fine shooter herself, and is more comfortable with the Canons and I am more comfortable with the MFD stuff. This was a big shoot and there are over 250 selects out of over 1000 total captures for the day's shoot in 5 different locations and combinations of models, wardrobes, wine product...etc. All in all; a good haul for our client's buck$.
There are many shots where me and the Phase are clearly superior and vice-versa. But I must say, when the MFD gets it right, it knocks it out of the park. When the Canon gets it right, its just a "ok, great...next..." kind've thing.

I recently lost a day shoot to a lower bidder on some tech products (sensors for encoders). The client came back to me, showed me what they got, and was saying things like "the shots we got from the other guy are ok, I guess, but they just aren't as "luminous".... they don't "pop" as what you have done for us before. Why is that?"
I don't know the answer for them, I suspect most of the difference has to do with better lighting and better post proc skills on my part. BUT I did see that the other shooter used 35mm DSLR and I always use view cam and MFD backs for their stuff. So that may have something to do with it as well. ;)
 

MrSmith

Member
well the focus is better on the 5d.
the phase shot has a sharp knee (and possibly moire on the shirt cuff?) but when i see sharp hair on his arm but his beard is soft i would not have that down as a keeper unless a bit of creative sharpening/masking would mean the client wouldn’t notice.
horses for courses, i know which camera i would grab if i had to shoot people and had a big shot list to contend with.
 

Egor

New member
well the focus is better on the 5d.
the phase shot has a sharp knee (and possibly moire on the shirt cuff?) but when i see sharp hair on his arm but his beard is soft i would not have that down as a keeper unless a bit of creative sharpening/masking would mean the client wouldn’t notice.
horses for courses, i know which camera i would grab if i had to shoot people and had a big shot list to contend with.
Cant argue with you there, MrSmith. The 5D is sharper across the whole shot agreed. If this were a portrait session, this shot would not be a pick. BUT, this a product shoot, and the product is what I was focusing on. Like I said earlier, I wish I had the same DoF as the 5D shot, but not necessary imo for this type of shot. The bottle/can is the primary focus, the rest just establishes a feel or lifestyle, but we want the eye to go to the product.

Many of these will be used for billboards viewed from great distance at 60 miles per hour so not as important to get the faces sharp as one might think, in fact I am often asked to throw them oof in post anyway...but like you said, horses for courses...

That cuff is not moiré, that, my friend, is called detail and superior glass. :)
 

Attachments

Top